SWRCB Workshop March 2005 Issue #8 CDFG Comments

Issue 8 Q1: Should the SWRCB amend Vernalis flow objectives 2/1-4/14 and 5/16-6/30?

Question #1 Responses 1.Adult Salmon Trend 2. Fraction of Smolts Afforded Protection 3. Target Flow & Production Potential 4. Window of Protection for Steelhead 5. VAMP Window & Water Temperatures 6. Fry Contribution to Escapement 7. Water Quality Objectives & Recovery 8. Study Integrity vs. Adaptive Management 9. SJR Basin-wide Model(s) Integration

Status of SJR Fall-run Chinook Salmon Declining trend with current Delta flow objectives – Average = 18,211 – Average = 13,855 Is the VAMP window sufficient to protect salmon beneficial use in the SJR? Is it time to re-consider the effectiveness of VAMP?

2. Window Too Narrow to Protect Salmon

Can Salmon Abundance in the SJR be Increased by Extending the Window of Protection?

3. Hypothesis: Salmon Production in SJR Largely a Function of: Flow MagnitudeFlow Magnitude Flow DurationFlow Duration Flow FrequencyFlow Frequency Simple ModelSimple Model

Mossdale to Chipp’s Smolt Survival

Cohort Production Estimate

Flow Magnitude Results

Duration: Pre & Post

Vernalis Target Frequency Can Salmon Abundance Be Increased With a Change in Vernalis Minimum Flow Frequency? Results: –Historical:7,252 –Altered: 10,279 –Increase: 29%

Compounding Escapement With Flow Increase Results

Take Home Message: Higher VAMP Target = >Adult Salmon Longer VAMP Period = >Adult Salmon Duration & Magnitude = >Adult Salmon Fewer 3200 Targets = >Adult Salmon

Steelhead

Flow Objective for Fry? Fry??: Contribution to escapement unknown Fry migrate in large #’s in wet years Wet years linked to tremendous adult escapements Wet years also produce tremendous smolt abundance Dissolved oxygen problematic at SDWSH in some years during Jan/Feb time frame Exports not curtailed when fry out-migrating DFG’s Management Focus on Smolts Return as adults in all years Strong corrrelation between smolt production and adult escapement DFG would support VAMP-like Experiments for Fry if: Comes in addition to, rather than at expense of, smolt beneficial use protection

Water Quality Objectives & Salmonid Population Recovery CDFG recognizes Salmonid life history is complex and uncertainty exists regarding influence of environmental variables The status of Salmonids in the SJR, the uncertainty of which variable most influences recovery, and questions regarding VAMP’s effectiveness towards accomplishing recovery goals suggests the need to re-evaluate the flow objectives and perhaps involve an independent peer review process that assesses: 1. Current scientific knowledge re: salmonid abundance 2. Develop complex population prediction models 3. Identify key areas of uncertainty 4. Evaluate if & how South Delta Standards can be changed to adequately protect SJR salmonid beneficial uses

SJR Model Integration CDFG is aware that several SJR basin- wide models are currently in varying stages of development Water Operations Model (CALSIM) Water Quality Model (CALSIM) Water Temperature (CALFED) Fall-run Chinook Salmon? (CALFED Science Program PSP) Models integrated to ensure solution is multi-goal oriented

VAMP Study Integrity vs. Adaptability First 5 Years focus on Study Integrity Salmon abundance continues to decline Time to look at “Adaptability” Independent Peer Review Process Could help the SWRCB & VAMP Parties:

Issue #8 Q:1 Recommendations 1. Keep VAMP but consider expanding window & increasing minimum flow level for SJR salmonids 2. Emphasize VAMP’s Adaptive Management spirit to increase level of salmonid resource beneficial use protection intended in the ’95 WQCP Plan 3. VAMP parties develop a plan to refine VAMP to increase duration, frequency, and magnitude of Vernalis flow levels to better protect SJR salmonids out-migrating thru the South Delta 4. Re-evaluate VAMP & Steelhead 5. SWRCB challenge VAMP parties to accelerate a permanent HORB to allow for >10,000 flows at Vernalis to occur as part of VAMP

Issue 8 Q2: Should the SWRCB change the methods for determining SJR flow objectives that are determined by reference to Delta flow objectives?

Question 2: Flow objective methodology Seen no analysis indicating whether methodology should be changed Migration conditions for salmon and steelhead are poor Spring SJR flow at Vernalis is a small fraction of natural flow Seasonal flow pattern had been greatly modified

Flow objective methodology No specific recommendation for changing the methodology If the Vernalis flow objective were to be de-coupled from X2 location, then DFG recommends for each water year type using the higher flow objectives (right hand column) in Table 3 in the 1995 WQCP to better protect the beneficial use of the lower SJR for anadromous fish